Debates of May 28th, 1998

Parks Canada Act

[John Cummins, Reform, Delta—South Richmond, BC]

Madam Speaker, I address the motion by the member for Ottawa—Vanier. His original amendment would have had the Official Languages Act apply to contractors and subcontractors operating in Canada's national parks.

As members are well aware, the Official Languages Act already applies to personnel employed in the national parks who must deal with the public. It was never intended to apply to people who did not have a public presence in those parks which is only logical.

In western Canada it is very difficult for people to acquire a second language given the circumstances in the location. To expect that somehow we are going to be able to supply bilingual people for these positions on a regular basis is really hoping for too much.

The position that we have taken on this bill is one which has been supported by the Minister of Justice. I would like to read a letter into the record which she sent to the Secretary of State for Parks. It very clearly expresses the concerns that we have on this issue. The fact that it is a letter written by the Minister of Justice should add some substance and credibility to our position:

I understand that, during review of Bill C-29 ( Canada Parks Agency Act ) in the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, questions have been raised about the application of the Official Languages Act (OLA) to the proposed Agency and to its contractors and subcontractors. I am writing to confirm the position of the Department of Justice on this matter, namely that:

1. Assuming that Bill C-29 is enacted in its current form, the Agency would be a “federal institution” under the Official Languages Act and, consequently, would be subject to all linguistic obligations set out in that Act.

Under Bill C-29, the agency would be considered as an agent of Her Majesty in right of Canada. Section 3 of Bill C-29 states that “there is hereby established a body corporate to be called the Canada Parks Agency, that may exercise powers and perform duties and functions only as an agent of Her Majesty in right of Canada ” [we underline]. In view of s. 3(1)(h) of the OLA which states that “any other body that is specified by an Act of Parliament to be an agent of Her Majesty in right of Canada (—)” is a federal institution, the Agency would clearly be considered as a federal institution and consequently, the OLA would fully apply to the Agency.

Furthermore, Bill C-29 also states in s. 4(1), that the “Minister is responsible for and has the overall direction of the Agency” and, at s. 4(2), that “the Agency shall comply with any general or special direction given by the Minister ” [we underline]. This requirement is also referred to in the second part of s. 3(1)(h) of the OLA where it is stated that a federal institution is also “any other body that is (—) to be subject to the direction of (—) a Minister of Crown”. As a consequence, the Agency would also meet this other criteria and, therefore, be clearly contemplated as a federal institution under the OLA .

In addition, section 50 of the Bill C-29 states that “Schedule II of the Federal Administrative Act , [FAA] is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order: (—) Canadian Parks Agency”. This schedule identifies the “departmental corporations” under the FAA , and under s. 2 of the FAA , the departmental corporations are considered to be “ department [s]” (we underline).

Under s. 3 of the OLA , the definition of “federal institution” includes “department[s] of the Government of Canada”. The Agency would thus be considered a “department” under s. 3 of the OLA and s. 2 of the FAA , and would consequently also be subject to the obligations and duties of the OLA because of that status.

In summary, in view of the definition of federal institutions as described in s. 3(1)(f) and (h) of the OLA , our position is that the Agency would be a federal institution under that Act because it is (i) an agent of Her Majesty, (ii) under the direction of a Minister of the Crown, and (iii) a department of the Government of Canada. As a result, it would be subject to the full linguistic duties and obligations of the OLA .

II. If the Agency were to contract-out services to the public which, under the Official Languages Act , have to be provided in both official languages, section 25 of that Act would require the Agency to ensure that the services provided on its behalf continue to be offered in both official languages.

Section 25 of the OLA was enacted to ensure that federal institutions would not circumvent their duties under Part IV of the OLA (and a fortiori , under s. 20 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ) when contracting out their services to third parties. S. 25 can only apply if we conclude that, in a given circumstance, the third party providing services to the public is acting on behalf of a federal institution. In every situation, the issue of whether a third party is acting on behalf of a federal institution must be determined on a case-by-case approach, on the basis of the circumstances and particularities of the arrangement between the federal institution and the third party.

In their usual meaning, the words “on behalf of” refer to the idea that one party is undertaking to do something for the benefit and as a representative of another party, generally at the request of the latter: “Behalf: 1 in the interest of (a person, principle, etc.). 2 as representative of (acting on behalf of my client”, in The Concise Oxford Dictionary , 8th ed., p. 99.

In our view some types of arrangements will clearly fall under the purview of s. 25, for instance if a federal institution is legally responsible—i.e., on the basis of an Act of Parliament, a contract or any rule of law—for the administration or undertaking of a particular activity or for the provision of services or communications to the public. In the event that the federal institution decides to contract out these services to a third party, the latter would be acting on behalf of the federal institution. As a consequence, s. 25 would apply and the federal institution would have to ensure that the third party providing the services and communications does so in compliance with the linguistic requirements of Part IV of the OLA.

Another type of arrangement which, in our view, would also be covered by s. 25 is the contract of mandat (or mandate) in civil law and of “agency” at common law. The rules of the mandat are based on the idea of representation: “[l]e mandataire [—] n'agit—” At common law, the power, vested in the hands of the agent, “is a power to affect his principal's position by doing acts on his behalf” ( Chitty on Contracts , Volume II, p. 22—we underline). Agency normally requires that the agent represent the principal. Indeed, the purpose and effect of the agency relationship are to transfer to the agent the authority of the principal to act, thereby enabling the agent to affect the principal's legal relations with third parties (C.E.D.(Ont.) 3rd ed., p. 49). As a consequence, in cases where the contract between the federal institution and the third party is considered to be a mandat or an agency relationship, the third party would be acting on behalf of the federal institution and s. 25 would require that its services and communications to the public be available in both official languages, in compliance with Part IV of the OLA.

That being said, the term “on behalf” should not necessarily be limited only to the types of arrangements described above, as a too narrow interpretation of s. 25—

The justice minister in No. III talks about the insertion of a linguistic clause in Bill C-29 not being advisable. She points out:

—the—wording of this amendment goes beyond the current application of the Official Languages Act since it seems to suggest that all parts of the OLA would apply to contractors and subcontractors of the Agency, as if they were federal institutions. This would have the effect of creating linguistic obligations for the contractors and subcontractors of the Parks Agency that do not currently exist under the OLA for contractors and subcontractors of other federal institutions.

[Howard Hilstrom, Reform, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Madam Speaker, the question of how these bills are drafted, how they come before the House, their intent, what the Canadian public perceives as the correct way to do our business and the final result of that business has a lot to do with the credibility of our final product.

In reviewing what we are doing here today, talking about these motions with regard to the National Parks Act, the member for Ottawa—Vanier in committee apparently put forward the idea that subcontractors are required to provide bilingual services to get a contract for work in our national parks.

The whole question of bilingualism in my province of Manitoba has been debated over the years in many aspects from schooling to services, to government services and to courts. I personally think that is a very important question.

I support the province of Manitoba and its bilingual policies. The whole Reform Party supports those policies and our laws, including educating our children in both languages as they so wish. However the province of Manitoba in its wisdom has not seen fit to have bilingualism in every little aspect of an individual's life.

In essence what was attempted here was to have official bilingualism used for a purpose that was never intended by parliament. As a result I am certainly here today to speak in favour of Motion No. 7 of the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt to delete the amendment that came out of committee.

Instead of admitting to the Canadian public that what was done in committee was not right and standing up on the other side and voting in favour of our motion to correct the error made in committee, the Liberal government tells the Canadian public about how it has to bring in another motion and that the Official Languages Act still applies and will be interpreted properly.

Canadians want straightforward discussions. They want straightforward action from parliament. Straightforward action would be simply to vote yes to Motion No. 7 and delete it. Instead there is subterfuge, confusion and an attempt to deceive the public about what is going on here. It should admit what it is wrong and correct it in the easiest manner.

In wrapping up, we should vote yea to the motion of the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt and do the common sense thing.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The question is on Motion No. 7. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

A recorded division on Motion No. 7 stands deferred.

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions at report stage of the bill.

Motion No. 7 was grouped with Motion No. 8 but before proceeding with Motion No. 8 we need to know the result of the vote on Motion No. 7.

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The vote is deferred until the end of the day on Monday.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-39, an act to amend the Nunavut Act and the Constitution Act, 1867, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Nunavut Act

[Herb Dhaliwal, Liberal, for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Herb Dhaliwal, Liberal, for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to address the House today on Bill C-39, an act to amend the Nunavut Act and the Constitution Act, 1867. I have the privilege of starting the third and final reading debate on this bill following a comprehensive review by the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

First off, I want to thank the standing committee for reviewing Bill C-39 carefully. Our government believes, and so do I, that members on both sides of the House have seen two very clear messages emerge from the committee proceedings.

First, there was overwhelming support for the proposed legislation in the North. Virtually everyone commended the bill for being balanced and thorough.

Second, time is of essence. Each day that goes by brings us closer to April 1, 1999, when the division will take place and Nunavut will be established.

If passed now, the amendments contained in Bill C-39 will provide for a climate of greater certainty in the early days of Nunavut. Elected leaders will be in office from the start, and the funding of essential services and programs will be secured. These amendments will also prevent any mix-up in the judicial system and administrative process.

Such a situation is unacceptable to this government, the people of Nunavut and all Canadians. By supporting Bill C-39 at third reading, this House can take the necessary steps to ensure that the early days of Nunavut will be characterized by a spirit of trust and celebration.

Creating Nunavut is a constitutional obligation of this government as the result of the Nunavut land claims agreement. For this reason alone, the bill warrants the support of this House.

However, honouring past commitments is only a small part of the importance of the creation of Nunavut to the Inuit of the eastern Arctic. Nunavut draws not on the past but on the future. Its creation is an expression of Canadians' recognition of the Inuit's right to self-government on their ancestral lands as true partners within the Canadian federation.

Nunavut will have a form of public government similar to those in Yukon and the Northwest Territories. Yet this government will be elected by a population that is 85% Inuit. In that sense, it will be a government unlike any other in Canada.

Anyone who had the opportunity to attend the standing committee hearings on April 29 will recall Alex Campbell's impassioned comments to the committee. Mr. Campbell is the executive director of Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, a non-profit corporation established to represent the Inuit under the land claims agreement. He had this to say about his vision of Nunavut:

In a mere 336 days, the most recent corner piece of the puzzle called Canada will be snugly set in place. Nunavut will have a long awaited representative government. Nunavut will have a growing representative workforce conducting territorial government business through a decentralized government across 11 of the Nunavut communities. Nunavut will promote, protect and preserve the language and culture in the workplace, in our laws and amongst our citizenship through the delivery of programs and services. As always, Nunavut will draw from previous lessons to make Nunavut a better place to live. That is the will and the desire of Inuit in Nunavut.

Making Nunavut a better place to live is a goal that can be shared by hon. members on both sides of the House. It is certainly a goal of this government, as stated very clearly in “Gathering Strength—Canada's Aboriginal Action Plan”, our response to the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples.

“Gathering Strength” reaffirmed our commitment to establish an effective decentralized government in Nunavut and to have Inuit fill 50% of the positions at all levels of Nunavut's public service. This will contribute to the government's broad goals of building strong northern communities, people and economies.

The main vehicle for establishing the new territory is the Nunavut Act which became law in June 1993. However, the task of creating a new territory is more complex than anyone imagined five years ago. As a result we are now faced with several transitional issues that need to be addressed through amendments to the Nunavut Act.

First and foremost is the need for an early election in Nunavut so that a duly elected territorial government can convene on April 1, 1999. This amendment was requested by political leaders in Nunavut. If a vote is to be held in early 1999, planning must begin in earnest within the next few weeks.

Bill C-39 also clarifies some existing provisions of the Nunavut Act. For example, it will provide greater legal certainty regarding the grandfathering of Northwest Territories laws and public institutions in Nunavut. It also ensures the creation of a court system that is similar to that of the Northwest Territories and clarifies how pending administrative and judicial actions will be dealt with.

The interim commissioner has to play a prominent role in the creation of Nunavut, but the powers conferred on him must be clear and strengthened. Bill C-39 accomplishes this. For example, the amendments in this bill will clarify the powers of the interim commissioner to negotiate agreements with the government of the Northwest Territories on the distribution of assets and liabilities.

This distribution of assets is a vital matter, because the government of Nunavut will have to have immediate access to financing and will soon have to acquire vehicles, office furniture, computers and other administrative equipment.

If the interim commissioner does not manage to negotiate agreements by April 1, 1999, Bill C-39 will give the Governor in Council the powers necessary to guarantee the new territorial government the assets it requires to carry on business.

Bill C-39 also introduces consequential amendments to other acts. The most important is an amendment to the Constitution Act, 1867, to give Nunavut representation in the House of Commons and the Senate.

A similar amendment was passed in 1975 to give Yukon and the Northwest Territories seats in parliament.

As I mentioned at the start, Bill C-39 enjoys huge support. Everyone agrees that it must achieve the objectives set for it and that we must act quickly.

Bill C-39 enjoys such support because it is the result of a process of consultation involving all the stakeholders.

Representatives of the governments of Canada and the Northwest Territories, of Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, of the Nunavut Implementation Commission and the office of the interim commissioner met more than 20 times to discuss the bill. The spirit of the discussions was conciliatory and one of mutual respect, and I would congratulate all the participants.

I believe John Amagoalik, chief commissioner of the Nunavut Implementation Commission expressed it best when he described the bill as “a workable and sensible compromise of competing interests”. In his appearance before the standing committee, Mr. Amagoalik praised what he called the spirit of frank disclosure and fulsome discussion that shaped Bill C-39. “The commission believes that this process of consultation has been a very useful one,” said Mr. Amagoalik, “and has contributed in no small way to the strength of the bill”.

Alex Campbell, who as I mentioned earlier is executive director of Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, has expressed his organization's unqualified support for the amendments. “We must ensure that the amendments are supported and passed as quickly as possible,” Mr. Campbell told the standing committee. “Nunavut's interim commissioner requires the direction and confirmation to proceed. This must happen for Nunavut to succeed”.

The executive director of the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada has also spoken in favour of the proposed amendments. Alan Braidek reminded the standing committee that the establishment of the territory of Nunavut was one of his organization's original goals. Again, I am quoting directly from his remarks to the committee. “We are very satisfied with the process and with the establishment of the territory, and we see it as a very positive thing for all Inuit of Canada to see the recognition of the Inuit of Nunavut in an appropriate place within Confederation”.

Deputy Premier Arlooktoo of the Northwest Territories also appeared before the standing committee. Mr. Arlooktoo acknowledged that the federal government had made many changes to Bill C-39 to address the concerns of the Northwest Territories government and expressed a willingness to move forward with the proposed amendments.

These comments to the standing committee serve to underline the strong support for this bill and the need for quick action. It now falls to this House to respond accordingly. The creation of a new territory in the eastern Arctic has been a goal of the Inuit for more than two decades. Division has also been endorsed by other residents of the current Northwest Territories.

Bill C-39 is the final piece of the legislative framework needed to achieve this goal. I urge hon. members to join me in supporting this legislation so that it can be sent quickly to the other place.

[Derrek Konrad, Reform, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House today and address Bill C-39, the amendments to the Nunavut Act.

Prior to addressing the proposed legislation, I want to again extend my best wishes to the residents of Nunavut. I just returned from a trip to Iqaluit with other members of the standing committee for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I enjoyed the hospitality of the people and listened to their proposals for increasing their economic self-reliance. I saw their pride in their new creation, the territory of Nunavut. There was much talk about improving their government and the delivery of services. We certainly wish them well in their endeavours.

Turning to the legislation, before my speech is over I hope to show why the members opposite should have adopted a reasonable and democratic amendment to this bill which was proposed by the Reform Party, the purpose of which was to improve the Nunavut Act. Certainly the purpose of the act as proposed is to improve the previous legislation. By adopting the Reform Party's amendments that legislation could have been improved.

We feel that sending this legislation now to the non-elected, unaccountable and therefore ineffective Senate will simply add the meaningless seal of approval to a bill that will not aid in the cause of democracy. I will be proposing an amendment at the end of my speech which I do not like putting forward but it is necessary given the government's stand on the whole issue of democracy.

The original legislation creating Nunavut territory was introduced and rushed through parliament by the Progressive Conservative government with little time for comprehensive study by members of parliament at that time. It contained numerous flaws such as this act is proposing to amend.

There were errors in the description even of the boundaries. I was interested as a land surveyor to read the errors that the description of the boundaries contained. There were gores and overlaps all along the boundaries. There are unanswered questions with the James Bay Cree as to the status of the islands off the shore of James Bay.

The deficiencies and errors in the act are meant to be corrected by the legislation before the House. There is one glaring oversight which the Leader of the Official Opposition spoke about. That is the matter of how the senator for the territory is to be selected.

We on this side of the House together with many Canadians realize that when the legislation was drafted for many years there had not been any innovative thinking in this House on how government should be constructed or how it should be delivered. It was only after the Reform Party came to parliament that anyone even spoke about how democracy in this country might be enhanced by having the taxpaying public have a say in the selection of their senators.

The election of Senator Stan Waters, a Reformer, was the people's choice in the only Senate election ever held in the history this nation. Depriving the Liberal Prime Minister of his number one patronage plum signals the end of civilization in the eyes of this government, but the election of Senator Stan Waters by ordinary Canadians did not bring about the apocalypse predicted by the government. Instead, Canadians for once had the person they chose for the Senate. This one senator, and only this one, was accountable only to the people who put him there rather than to the Prime Minister of the day and his political machine. His independence meant that he was free to promote and protect the interests of the people who put him there. Is that not the way it should be?

There are members of the Senate who have been there through seven or eight governments and five prime ministers. We realize we need a sense of history in this House but we do not need to bring the artefacts right into government at the Prime Minister's wish and then leave them there until they have long forgotten the current issues of this country.

The creation of a new territory was a perfect opportunity for this government to give the gift of fuller democracy both to the territory itself and to the rest of this country. An elected senator would have been a generous gesture to the people of Nunavut that would signal the government's commitment to reducing the member's list for club Chrétien. Failure to adopt that measure means a continuation of stale and outdated policies regarding the Senate and appointments to it and its increasingly ineffective role in defending regional interests.

The Senate as currently constituted is anathema to many Canadians, and calls for its democratization or outright abolition will only grow more strident as time goes on. Is it not about time the government listened to the voices of those who are calling for democratic reform? It is not as if there were no interest in the matter, as the Liberals would have us believe. Alberta is planning to push ahead with elections for the people's choice for candidates to be appointed to the Senate. This type of thing will only increase in frequency and will spread to other provinces.

I believe the Prime Minister and the government really have only two options. The first is really twofold. They could have been at the front of the parade and shown some real leadership on this issue by first allowing the people of Nunavut to democratically elect their first senator and they could have made a commitment to the rest of Canada that the Prime Minister is willing to appoint the provincially elected candidates for senators in accordance with voter wishes. By rejecting this reasonable option, the Liberals risk being in the history books as the party that denied Canadians a democratic voice in the selection of those they desire to govern them.

Hope springs eternal in the human heart. It is spring now and as life and colour return to the earth there is the promise of a new crop as seeds are planted. The seeds of some new and democratic ideas have been planted here today, seeds of hope for Canadians weary of paying taxes to support an outmoded and deficient arm of government. It has long fallen behind the needs and expectations of the people of Canada and the purposes for which it was created. In its present form it is an anachronism, a fossil remnant of the important institution it was meant to be.

We had hoped the government of the day would act on the amendment which was previously proposed. However, I now propose on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition and other Reform members the following amendment:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

“this House declines to give third reading to Bill C-39, an act to amend the Nunavut Act and the Constitution Act, 1867, since the principle of the bill does not guarantee that the government will select senators who have been lawfully elected in a territorial Senate election”.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The Chair finds the amendment to be in order. Debate is on the amendment.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a great amendment and very timely.

The standing orders allow us only so many opportunities to speak of the other place, the Senate. Normally we leave the Senate to do its own thing and we do the House of Commons things here and never the twain shall meet.

On occasion there are bills that mention the Senate, in this case the appointment of a senator and the process that should apply. This bill gives us an opportunity to point out to Canadians that the way senators are appointed does not have to be done as it is done now. This amendment says that the appointment process has so discredited the other place over the years because of friends of the Prime Minister being appointed ad nauseam who are expected to be loyal to him until death do us part or age 75, whichever comes first. That process has been going on now for the life of the nation, far too long.

It is interesting that a recent poll indicates that some 43% of Canadians think the Senate should be elected. A further 41% say it should be abolished. They have given up on the place. I understand where they are coming from when they say the place is a boondoggle. The place is a waste of money, a patronage infested place based on protocol, geritol and alcohol and they do not want to have anything to do with it. So 41% of the people say they do not want anything to do with it. They would like to abolish the Senate.

That is unwise and I hope to talk to the 41% during these brief remarks. A Senate that was elected and is accountable to the electorate and not to the Prime Minister who sent him or her into that exalted office would be able to represent the concerns of their region or province in a regional manner that the House of Commons does not reflect. The House of Commons is by necessity and must remain by and large representation by population.

I accept the principle that the larger provinces have the larger sway in this place. There are 103 members from Ontario. That is as it should be. There is a big population in Ontario that will for the foreseeable future dominate the House of Commons in representation, not necessarily in the quality of presentations but at least in numbers, as it should be.

What about the more sparsely populated regions of the country? Who looks after their interests in this place? You can do your best as a representative of a smaller province population wise, a province like Prince Edward Island or Saskatchewan, provinces that do not have a burgeoning population or any prospects of that happening soon. But three or four or half a dozen voices in a sea of three hundred and one seats are almost voices in the wilderness.

A Senate accountable to the voters of Saskatchewan or of P.E.I., not the Prime Minister, would allow those senators to have a strengthened role in the upper place to review legislation and to have a serious sober second thought on legislation. They would be able to represent regional interests and disparities that this place does not do a perfect job of.

They could be given enhanced roles on everything from the selection of supreme court justices to the review of that sort of thing and review of other government appointments. They could serve an excellent role being a check and balance on the ever increasing powers of the Prime Minister and his office. That would be a wonderful thing.

In the Nunavut bill we have a provision that says the old system is the good system. It says the senator should be appointed and he should come from among the cadre of the Prime Minister's friends, answerable to him and his party.

I have heard the Prime Minister say in this House that he would appoint a senator into that other place and he will do the work of the Liberal Party. That is his or her job. What a sad thing as we approach the 21st century that we are still living in the days of the House of Lords where depending on who you knew rather than on the confidence of the people, you got a position in an exalted place. It used to be an exalted place. That is really unfortunate.

Now is the perfect time to initiate change. The amendment says let us give the people of Nunavut an opportunity to elect their senator into the other place. Nunavut by and large is inhabited by aboriginal people. I do not know the percentage but they populate a very high proportion of the Nunavut region. I think they have an opportunity to send someone they have confidence in, someone they are friends with, associated with or have respect for at least.

That person may or may not be of any political stripe, they may be Liberal, Tory, NDP, Reform. I do not really even care because if they had the confidence of the people of Nunavut what an opportunity for those people to lead the way for the nation. They would be able to say they are electing a representative to the upper house who would represent the Nunavut region, not the Prime Minister.

Every time an issue comes up dealing with the Arctic, dealing with aboriginal issues, an Arctic conference which now takes place from time to time, every time there are land claims or anything happening in the region, a mine, a caribou herd, whatever it might be they will be there to represent their people.

What a concept. The senator would not be there to represent the Prime Minister, not to ensure anything going speedily through the Senate, if anything can be done speedily in the Senate, but to ensure the people of that region are properly represented. Would that not be a good and healthy step toward democratizing the other place? I think it would be a grand and wonderful step.

It would be a wonderful thing to give that ability to this area north of 60 that is in a fledgling manner feeling its way toward a democratic system under which it is to be governed. It is actually building the structures there right now.

What an opportunity for those people to say during the fledgling and expanding part of their democracy that they are going to be the pace setters and lead the way. That would be a wonderful thing for the people up north to be able to say, that they are leading the way in Senate reform.

Eighty-four per cent of people say either elect the senators or get rid of them, one or the other. This would allow those people to say let us see if it makes a difference. Here is a tiny first step. There is only one but there is one. One person can make a difference not only in setting a trend but in just showing that it can work better. It did happen before in the Senate selection process in Alberta a few years ago. Senator Stan Waters became the first person elected in a provincial senatorial selection.

The prime minister of the day said that while it is his privilege under our constitution to appoint senators, recognizing the wisdom of placing into the Senate the person who was duly elected, Mr. Mulroney said that makes democratic sense. He said that it made sense and he appointed Stan Waters even though Stan Waters was a Reformer.

Mr. Waters went to the Senate. Those of us in the Reform Party often remember his call to arms about keep on marching. He was a very self-disciplined man. He gave the keep on marching orders as he went into the Senate. Unfortunately he passed away all too soon. Perhaps the long term impact of his presence was not felt as it could have been had he been there longer.

This amendment would do more than any other single thing to restore the faith of those 84% who have given up on the Senate.

Other things can be done with the Senate. For example, there is a person on Parliament Hill in one of the parliamentary buildings who is no longer a senator but who still gets accommodations. He has a suite of offices. He has access to the phones. He has facilities paid for by the taxpayer and he is not even a senator. He is a retired senator. He has been out of office for a couple of years already.

When senators have finished their job, when they are 75 years old, it is time to get out and write their memoirs, smoke their pipes at the beach, gaze out over the ocean and start writing. There is a maximum age in the other place. It is the rule. The rule on retirement at 75 seems to be a reasonable one. The ex-senator, past senator or whatever he is should move on.

If we were to elect a senator from Nunavut, perhaps he could even use that same suite of offices. He could move right in and say that this was the way it used to be where the senator kind of moved in. If they were the friend of the prime minister they got the seat and not only that, they got the offices even after their job was finished.

We could do something very symbolic and say he moves in and takes either that office or Senator Thompson's old digs. That of course is an option as well, since Senator Thompson is as they say in the funeral parlour business, no longer with us. His offices are available. Either one of those offices would be very symbolic in saying that is what is wrong with the Senate and this fresh new face, this elected person is what is right with the new Senate.

There is no doubt we would hear the cheering in Ottawa from the people of Nunavut who would say “Ah, my senator, my guy, my woman is down there right now holding to the fire the feet of the Liberal government and the opposition. In fact, they are doing their job representing my region”. That is what those people are going to say, if and only if the person is elected.

If the person is appointed, unfortunately there will be 41% saying to abolish the Senate and 43% saying to elect it. And there will be another .5% saying “Look at that, another boondoggle. The prime minister picked somebody who raised money for him, who campaigned for him, who golfs with him, who helped him with his investments or who knows what all. He or she gets an appointment in the Senate. Thanks for nothing”. That is what they are going to say. “I thought I was sending somebody down there and paying his or her wages to represent me and my area, my region. Instead I hear from the prime minister that he or she is there to represent the prime minister and the Liberal Party”. That is just not good enough.

To the people of Nunavut, I suggest it could be done in a dozen different ways. A poll could be done. There could be a questionnaire but that is not even necessary. Eighty-five per cent of them will say “Let me send the senator from among us, not from among the Liberal Party”.

What a glorious opportunity we have in this House to change the course of Canadian history. Maybe it has to be one at a time. Alberta is going to hold a similar election this fall to select people. It will then ask the prime minister to appoint them to the other place as a halfway step to reforming the Senate.

If the people of Nunavut could lead the way it would be a great opportunity for them to say they championed a cause and were in the forefront of positive change in the House of Commons. That would be a wonderful thing for them and this institution. It would be a wonderful thing for the Senate which I think is clamouring for some direction and a positive role. It needs something positive in that place.

It would set a precedent. Alberta could be next and then B.C. which also has a Senate electoral act in place. Maybe even Saskatchewan would follow because it is now considering a Senate electoral act. And so on and so on until the other place is elected and effective. Then we could work toward the third goal of rejigging the numbers in the other place, but at least with people who are standing up on a public podium telling the people what they stand for and what they will do for their region if they are elected. Their responsibility would then be to the people and not to the prime minister.

As they say in other circles, what a glorious day it will be when we have an elected Senate instead of the patronage trough that the other place unfortunately has become.

[Ghislain Fournier, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-39 at third reading.

I am all the more pleased because of the seven native communities that are located in my riding of Manicouagan. The act to create the territory of Nunavut and to organize its government became law on June 10, 1993. It sealed the land claims agreement and set out the legal and political framework for the new territory of Nunavut.

As we know, when Bill C-39 comes into effect, it will modify the map of the Canadian north by creating the territory of Nunavut, which is scheduled to come into being on April 1, 1999. This will be the first time the borders of Canada have been changed since Newfoundland joined the federation in 1949. I know that the Inuit, who make up 80% of the population of Nunavut, 17,500 out of a total 22,000, see this legislation as highly significant.

It will allow them, along with the 20% non-aboriginal population, to administer the 1.9 million square kilometres of their land via a legislative assembly duly elected by universal suffrage.

Nunavut means “our land” in Inuktitut, the language of the Inuit. Their land is immense, representing one-fifth of the continental mass of Canada's 9,970,610 square kilometres.

The territory of Nunavut is made up of three regions and includes 28 Inuit communities. From a geographical point of view, Nunavut is situated in the centre and east of the Northwest Territories, in the far north of Canada, that is north of the 60th parallel. Labrador borders it on the extreme southeast. It is also bordered by various bodies of water: the Arctic Ocean to the north, Baffin Bay to the east, separating it from Greenland, and Hudson's Bay and Ungava Bay to the south.

Bill C-39 establishing Nunavut will divide the Northwest Territories into two distinct entities, Nunavut and the Northwest Territories.

This bill provides for a harmonious devolution of powers from the federal and territorial governments to Nunavut.

It refers to the 1993 legislation, which was amended to include the recommendations of the Nunavut commission. The commission was set up in 1993 with the mandate to advise the governments of Canada and the Northwest Territories, as well as Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., the three parties concerned by the establishment of Nunavut.

Made up of nine members representing the federal and territorial governments as well as Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., the commission considered the administrative and political issues relating to the establishment of Nunavut. These issues are: the transfer of services from the Government of Northwest Territories to that of Nunavut, as well as the timeframe; the funding and development of training programs needed to create a public service for Nunavut made up mostly of Inuit; the planning of the first election of a Nunavut government, and the needs in terms of infrastructure.

The 1993 Nunavut Act stipulated that a general election to choose the members of the new Nunavut Assembly would be held after the new territory was established.

Under Bill C-39, the first general election for the legislative assembly of Nunavut will be held before the new territory is established on April 1, 1999 to allow the legislature to be operational as soon as the establishment occurs.

The legislative assembly will include 19 members, which means that the territory will be divided into 19 electoral districts. This first general election in Nunavut will be based on the current electoral legislation of the Northwest Territories.

Bill C-39 also amends the Northwest Territories Act to adjust the number of seats required in the Northwest Territories legislature.

Finally, Bill C-39 amends the Constitution Act, 1867, to provide for Senate and House of Commons representation for Nunavut. This representation will be similar to that of Yukon and the Northwest Territories.

It is also worth mentioning that, when Nunavut is officially established on April 1, 1999, the laws and ordinances of the Northwest Territories will become the laws of Nunavut. The powers of the new government of Nunavut will be equivalent to those of the existing territorial governments.

The transfer of culture, public housing and health programs should be completed by the year 2009.

Obviously, the transfer of certain jurisdictions from the territorial and federal governments to the new government of Nunavut is somewhat complex. It requires a lot of preparation and, I would say, negotiation. However, it must also be said that the history of the Northwest Territories is complex. The origin of that part of the country and the history of its division into distinct territories go back a long way.

From the time Rupert's Land was divided up, first to form the province of Manitoba in 1870, then to establish the Yukon in 1898, then to carve out the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan in 1905, and finally to establish the present boundaries of the Northwest Territories in 1912, there were different types of administrations and a lot of negotiations between the people and the leaders.

On the aboriginal side, since 1976, Inuit Tapirisat, the Inuit organization, has been suggesting to the territorial and federal leaders to delimit their territory to allow for the settlement of land claims made by the Inuit of Canada.

It took two referendums, in 1982 and 1992, for both sides to agree on the new boundaries.

This bill establishing Nunavut, and its amendments, is the result of more than 25 years of efforts by the Inuit, who fought tirelessly to regain control over their land and their lives.

Obviously, the Bloc Quebecois cannot object to a piece of legislation which crowns so many years of negotiations and allows the Inuit to finally take their place on this continent by taking charge of their own lives.

Thanks to Bill C-39 establishing Nunavut, the Inuit will be in control and they will have all the necessary economic, political, social and cultural levers to look after their development and government on their own. This way, they will be able to act in their own best interest, for the good of their community, ensuring the harmonious development of their territory.

However, my party, speaking through the critic for aboriginal affairs, the hon. member for Saint-Jean, expressed a serious concern at second reading. The Bloc Quebecois remains concerned about the representation of Nunavut in the Senate.

We have nothing against the representation of Nunavut per se. However, representations have been made by our members in the last parliament to abolish the Senate of Canada, that obsolete and ineffective institution.

This institution, which costs Quebeckers and Canadians needlessly, belongs to a different century and operates on patronage. Such patronage appointments deprive our legislative process of the required credibility and objectivity, which is a rather serious problem.

To conclude, another concern expressed by my colleague, the hon. member for Saint-Jean and critic for aboriginal affairs, relates to the islands east of James Bay, south of Hudson Bay and north of Nunavik, in Quebec.

I draw the attention of this House to the fact that the James Bay Cree and the Nunavik Inuit have been trying to negotiate since 1977 with the Department of Indian Affairs, so that we recognize their rights over the waters, the sea ice and the surrounding waters, as well as resources.

Negotiations were effectively suspended very soon after they began, in 1977, because of a dispute over compensation and the status of the regions involved. Since measures were undertaken to create Nunavut, the Cree and the Inuit have been wanting to begin a dialogue on this issue with the department.

Officials from the Grand Council of the Crees of Quebec appeared before the aboriginal affairs committee and expressed their concerns about this bill, as it relates to their claims.

They hope this bill will move the minister of Indian affairs to resume negotiations on the recognition of their rights. They say that they support the creation of Nunavut, but they reaffirm the importance of the negotiations on their rights within the boundaries of Nunavut, and the need to resume these negotiations.

I strongly hope that the minister of Indian affairs and her officials will reply favourably to that call. Otherwise, my party will make it its duty to hound them about this important issue.

I hope that the creation of Nunavut will bring harmony and prosperity to Inuit and aboriginal communities in that part of the country.

At the beginning of my speech, I mentioned that there are aboriginal communities in my riding. Among them are Washat and Maliothenam.

I demand the government keep its word. On the subject of the Inuit, during the election campaign, there was a promise of money for a cultural centre. The Montagnais in Washat and Maliothenam have undertaken the major project of building a cultural centre to promote their culture. Through their initiative they have undertaken a project worth over $3 million.

The Government of Quebec, which promised $700,000, contributed $700,000. The federal government, through the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development solemnly promised $700,000 during the election.

I ask this government whether it is going to contribute the $700,000 or not? Will it honour its commitment? Since we are on the subject of aboriginal peoples, I will take the opportunity to ask the government to honour its commitment and contribute the $700,000, because the construction of the Montagnais cultural centre in Maliothenam and Washat, in Sept-Îles, is just about complete. The centre will be inaugurated on June 22, and they do not yet have the promised $700,000. So, I say to the government “You promised things. Honour your promise. Give them the $700,000”.

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured today to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-39 to facilitate the creation of Nunavut. On behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party I would like to indicate at the outset our strong and unequivocal support for the bill.

In less than one year Canada's third territory will come into being, thanks to the passage of the Nunavut Act on June 10, 1993. This legislation would pave the way for Nunavut's first general election. The creation of Nunavut and the unfolding of aboriginal self-government through public government in this new territory will be watched closely throughout the world.

It is unfortunate that the Reform Party earlier in discussion of the bill opted for using the creation of Nunavut as an inappropriate political opportunity to deal with other issues and is even today continuing in its failure to support the bill. It is yet another example of the Reform Party putting its own selfish political interests ahead of the interests of the aboriginal peoples and the people of the north who themselves want to move ahead with the creation of Nunavut and the concept of self-government.

The bill, which my colleagues and I hope soon becomes law, is not primarily the result of the efforts of members of the Chamber. It merely represents a short segment in the long process reflecting the hopes, dreams, plans and tireless effort of many Inuit and others in the momentous task of giving birth to the new territory.

I applaud their efforts with all sincerity. Not only have they made history in the soon to be Nunavut but throughout Canada and indeed throughout the world. Central to the success thus far, the historic effort that is the creation of Nunavut, has been the careful negotiations among Inuit negotiators, government and others.

I congratulate all Inuit who have worked on and participated in this effort over the last 22 years and even before. The tireless efforts of the Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., formerly the Tunngavik Federation of Nunavut, deserve recognition at this stage of dealing with the bill.

Support for the bill will be an important part of the effort to move ahead with aboriginal self-government in this region. This will allow for province type powers essential to the development of the social, cultural, economic and political well-being of Inuit.

Nunavut comprises 1.9 million square kilometres, roughly one-fifth of the entire Canadian land mass or almost the size of Greenland. This clearly represents a tremendous opportunity for Inuit to manage wildlife and resources in a formal fashion in government, having already managed them for so many thousands of years before Canada came into being. This will seek to formalize inherent Inuit rights to fish, wildlife and land that have been their right since time immemorial.

With a population of roughly 24,600, Inuit will comprise over four out of every five people in the territory to be. The representatives elected to bring this new territory into being would be accountable to a largely aboriginal electorate. The land claims agreement already passed recognizes Inuit title to 350,000 square kilometres of land and includes provisions for joint management and resource revenue sharing.

While the minority population of Nunavut currently pervades the territorial administration, the challenge in part will be to see how the majority culture of Nunavut can be knit together with the culture of the minority population as the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples suggested.

Once again I commend the Inuit involved in all aspects of the negotiations which led to the bill and to the development of Nunavut as a whole. This extends not only to the chief negotiators but also to all those involved at every level and their families who so often had to endure long absences during the varied steps of the process.

As well I recognize the efforts of the standing committee, the committee clerk, the staff and those within the ministry who have worked in a positive way to assist with bringing this new territory into being.

Just last week I had the opportunity of travelling north and visiting some of the aboriginal communities in northern Quebec as well as Iqaluit, the capital of the newly created territory of Nunavut. This trip to the north was quite an eye opener for me. It was very interesting to see the beautiful yet rugged terrain of the north.

It also brought to light many of the very serious problems that people in the north face in their day to day living: the very high cost of living because everything has to be transported in by either ship or air; the housing situation of the people in the north quite often involving a lot of overcrowding and inadequate housing; and the employment opportunities, or perhaps I should say the lack of employment opportunities, in many cases. There are many challenges to be faced by the people in the north.

We also saw a number of very positive things happening. We were able to visit the Arctic college to see the steps that were being taken for Inuit people to maintain their language and to move ahead with courses that will be relevant to their way of life and to their existence.

There is a lot of excitement around the creation of Nunavut. There is a lot of expectation in the air. The people who have worked long and hard to create this territory and to become a part of the Canadian society in a meaningful way deserve our support. They deserve much better than haggling over the bill around the point of a senate and a senator.

The bill should move ahead with the support of every member of the House. As we support this initiative we are supporting the right of a people to determine their destiny, to take part in shaping their lives and to lead meaningful lives within the context of Canadian society.

In conclusion, I am very pleased to be able to support the bill. I urge every member of the House to support it at third reading.